Theos-Talk Archives (June 2010 Message tt00025)

Thanks Joaquim

My views are:

Your e-mail make me respond again in defence of the original Theosophical Society (1875-1891) before HPB died.
At least the below is my view on it. others might think that it is wrong, and that we all should be entangled with politics instead of wisdom.


Carlos wrote the following in his article:
"* The first and main object of the theosophical movement, which refers to the ideal of Universal Brotherhood, was clearly adopted by the United Nations. The first Article of the U.N. Charter, which states the four Purposes and Principles of the U.N.,  is profoundly theosophical.  The United Nations goals are: 


"1) To maintain peace and security (...); 2) To develop friendly relations among nations (...); 3) To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and  4) To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends." [19]"


M. Sufilight says:
Well...when I read this, I did not at first believe my eyes, and then I remembered that something was quite wrong...


The United Nations Charter in fact states something quite different, if the words are read in their entirety...


The Purposes of the United Nations are:
  1.. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
  2.. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
  3.. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
  4.. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml

- - -

M. Sufilight says:
Now I do not mind, that people only like to read the good they see. Yet H. P. Blavatsky and other theosophists never hesitated calling politics for Low-Ethics in 1875-1891..
And the Constitution of the Theosophical Society was against political involvement as late as Januar 1891, before Annie Besant and others changed it. Saying that the United Nations is the same as theosophy or to insinuate such a thing is, aught to be shown in its true and honest light - as a false and deceiving activity, and aught to be rejected on the spot. 

I will dearly say, that Followers of The Theosophical Society in its original spirit (1875-1891) should always be on guard - and - seek to reject any kind of politicizing or Christianizing of its Main Aims. The creation of a Nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of humanity can never ever be achieved by writing man-made laws on a piece of paper, by the use of human Courts (swaering by the Bible or the Quran) and Judge, and more or less sickening prisons. Such a construction will never end the strifes between the worlds religions and never make politicians change and begin to deal - honestly - with the Meaning of Life, instead of continously get entangled in Spin, Party politics based on no-solid rock, and in compromizing with ethics.

An example:
And should we state that Friendly relations and equal rights among Afghan people (in accordance with the UN Charter) without question has been promoted by the United Nations since the western forces invaded that country?
But why deceive people into thinking that the United Nations has the first object of the original Theosophical Society (1875-1891) as their aim as well, when it all in all is not the truth? This baffles me.
I wonder, what agenda there could be behind such a promotion.


H. P. Blavatsky in fact also wrote in The Key to Theosophy:
"Abolish the oath in Courts, Parliament, Army and everywhere, and do as the Quakers do, if you will call yourselves Christians. Abolish the Courts themselves, for if you would follow the Commandments of Christ, you have to give away your coat to him who deprives you of your cloak, and turn your left cheek to the bully who smites you on the right. "Resist not evil, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you," for "whosoever shall break one of the least of these Commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven," and "whosoever shall say 'Thou fool' shall be in danger of hell fire." And why should you judge, if you would not be judged in your turn? Insist that between Theosophy and the Theosophical Society there is no difference, and forthwith you lay the system of Christianity and its very essence open to the same charges, only in a more serious form. "
http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm

And interestingly is it that the United Nations Headquarters in New York was build in accordance with what we know as Modernism.

H. P. Blavatsky wrote on politics:
 
"Unconcerned about politics; hostile to the insane dreams of Socialism and of Communism, which it abhors-as both are but disguised conspiracies of brutal force and sluggishness against honest labour; the Society cares but little about the outward human management of the material world. The whole of its aspirations are directed towards the occult truths of the visible and invisible worlds. Whether the physical man be under the rule of an empire or a republic, concerns only the man of matter. His body may be enslaved; as to his Soul, he has the right to give to his rulers the proud answer of Socrates to his Judges. They have no sway ove the inner man. "
( In the very first number of the first volume of the magazine, The Theosophist, that for October 1879, in the article "What Are the Theosophists?" (reprinted in U.L.T. Pamphlet No. 22) we find the above from H. P. blavatsky)
  http://www.teosofia.com/Mumbai/7112politics.html


  - - -

  *** Let us not forget the next main articles of the United Nations Charter ***

  "Article 2
  The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

    1.. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
    2.. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
    3.. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
    4.. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
    5.. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
    6.. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
    7.. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll. 
  Article 3
  The original Members of the United Nations shall be the states which, having participated in the United Nations Conference on International Organization at San Francisco, or having previously signed the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, sign the present Charter and ratify it in accordance with Article 110. 

  Article 4
    1.. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
    2.. The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.
  Article 5
  A Member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council. 

  Article 6
  A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. "
  http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml





M. Sufilight



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: jdmsoares 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 8:24 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Blavatsky and Nazism


    
  Dear Friends,
  Thanks MKR to bring again to this group this topic about the
  misconceptions aroud Theosophy and it supposed influence on Nazism.
  There are still circulating on the web and in some books a lot of false
  ideais about HPB and Theosophy.
  That article of Carlos is really opportune.
  In this context, there is another article that i would like to draw your
  attention:
  "THEOSOPHY AND THE SECOND WORLD WAR - Nazism, Fascism, and the
  Theosophical Movement During The Twentieth Century
  <http://www.esoteric-philosophy.com/2010/05/theosophy-and-second-world-w\
  ar.html> "

  Direct link:
  http://www.esoteric-philosophy.com/2010/05/theosophy-and-second-world-wa\
  r.html
  <http://www.esoteric-philosophy.com/2010/05/theosophy-and-second-world-w\
  ar.html>

  Joaquim

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@...>
  wrote:
  >
  > Thanks MKR
  >
  > My views are:
  >
  > This made me react and try to just one more time get an response from
  the honourable leaders of the TS about the follownig views...
  >
  >
  > Carlos wrote:
  > "7) You fail to see that Helena Blavatsky did not engage in any
  anti-British Movement or pro-Indian Independence Movement, and that
  even the Theosophical Society (Adyar) was pro-British during the Second
  World War, not to mention all the other branches of the Movement; "
  >
  > M. Sufilight says:
  > This I write the following...
  > What Carlos seem to fail seeing is, that Blavatsky and the
  Theosophical Society was against any kind of political involvement.
  > Try The theosophical Constitution and Statutes given in The
  Theosophist - January 1891. And also the ORIGINAL PROGRAM MANUSCRIPT,
  written 1886 in BCW, Vol. VII, p. 145. Both of them are clearly against
  political involvement. H. S. Olcott wrote against political involvement
  of the T.S. members in 1882.
  >
  > . In the very first number of the first volume of the magazine, The
  Theosophist, that for October 1879, in the article "What Are the
  Theosophists?" (reprinted in U.L.T. Pamphlet No. 22) we find the
  following from H. P. blavatsky:
  >
  > "Unconcerned about politics; hostile to the insane dreams of
  Socialism and of Communism, which it abhors-as both are but disguised
  conspiracies of brutal force and sluggishness against honest labour; the
  Society cares but little about the outward human management of the
  material world. The whole of its aspirations are directed towards the
  occult truths of the visible and invisible worlds. Whether the physical
  man be under the rule of an empire or a republic, concerns only the man
  of matter. His body may be enslaved; as to his Soul, he has the right to
  give to his rulers the proud answer of Socrates to his Judges. They have
  no sway ove the inner man. "
  >
  >
  > In the Supplement to The Theosophist for July 1883 can be found a very
  important pronouncement by Col. H. S. Olcott, the co-founder and
  President of the Theosophical Society, against mixing Theosophy and
  politics. This statement, which H.P.B. endorsed, reads:
  > "That our members, and others whom it interests, may make no mistake
  as to the Society's attitude as regards Politics, I take this occasion
  to say that our Rules, and traditional policy alike, prohibit every
  officer and fellow of the Society, AS SUCH, to meddle with political
  questions in the slightest degree, and to compromise the Society by
  saying that it has, AS SUCH, any opinion upon those or any other
  questions. The Presidents of Branches, in all countries, will be good
  enough to read this protest to their members, and in every instance when
  initiating a candidate to give him to understand-as I invariably do-the
  fact of our corporate neutrality. So convinced am I that the perpetuity
  of our Society depends upon our keeping closely to our legitimate
  province, and leaving Politics "severely alone," I shall use the full
  power permitted to me as President-Founder to suspend or expel every
  member, or even discipline or discharter any Branch which shall, by
  offending in this respect, imperil the work now so prosperously going on
  in various parts of the world."
  > http://www.teosofia.com/Mumbai/7112politics.html
  >
  >
  > This alone leads me to consider whether Olcot and Blavatsky would not
  have expelled Annie Besant and perhaps even the present day Theosophical
  Society's leaders, because the do not in any clear manner reject
  political involvement - and the present day Constitution and Statutes
  have deleted the paragraph saying:
  > "ARTICLE XIII
  > Offences
  > 1. Any Fellow who shall in any way attempt to involve the Society In
  political disputes shall be immediately expelled."
  > (The Constitution and Statutes, written in The Theosophist, Januar
  1891)
  >
  >
  > As long as no member in TS Adyar will go forward and clearly exlpain
  why it has been necessary to deviate from the original programe with
  regard to politics during Annie Besants leadership, and during the
  present day leadership, I se no reason to join the TS, because then it
  must really be a carcass reasting on no solid grounds.
  >
  > Silence is of course also an answer.
  > And we ask in the name of compassion: Is this how you promulagte
  theosophy? When will you teach theosophy proper?
  >
  > ----
  > (B)
  >
  > Carlos wrote:
  > "9) You fail to see that H.P.B.'s Theosophy is completely against any
  conception of a "unfailing leader", a concept which belongs to the
  Vatican, to Nazis, and to Fascists."
  >
  > M. Sufilight says:
  > This I write the following...
  > I wonder if Carlos fails to see, that the present day TS does not
  clearly and visibly seem offer such a view to outsiders and potential
  members about J. Krishnamurti's role in the TS of the past and the
  present?
  >
  >
  >
  > Well I found these question important to ask.
  > And one can only wonder whether the TS only promotes theosophy towards
  the Jews, and leave all honest Blavatskyan Theosophists in the cold.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > M. Sufilight
  >
  >
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: MKR
  > To: theos-talk
  > Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 4:01 AM
  > Subject: Theos-World Blavatsky and Nazism
  >
  >
  >
  > The subject of the influence of HPB's writing on Nazism has been
  discussed
  > in the past in various forums.
  >
  > There is a very interesting discussion in a recent article at <
  > http://www.esoteric-philosophy.com/> titled:
  >
  > 'Message to an Author Who Did not Study Theosophy'. It is very well
  written
  > and theosophists would find it interesting.
  >
  > MKR
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]